Search

We’re a little tardy in writing about yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling in Ledbetter v. Goodyear. The court ruled that employees must make their discrimination complaints within 180 days â€œafter the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.â€? In other words, the discrimination occurs at the time a woman is given a salary that is significantly lower than her male counterparts. If she doesn’t catch on to the pay disparity within 180 days, she’s screwed. Which is why Ledbetter’s attorneys had argued that she was discriminated against every time she was handed a paycheck for less money than her male equivalent on the job — not simply when her salary was determined. According to the Times:

Ms. Ledbetterâ€™s salary was initially the same as that of her male colleagues. But over time, as she received smaller raises, a substantial disparity grew. By the time she brought suit in 1998, her salary fell short by as much as 40 percent; she was making $3,727 a month, while the lowest-paid man was making $4,286.

So 180 days isn’t much time to figure out a pay disparity exists. How many people — especially, for example, women in nontraditional professions — talk openly with their coworkers about how much they’re earning?
This is likely to have a chilling effect on employment discrimination suits. As Scott says,

Republicans don’t have to modify or repeal civil rights legislation, and the Court’s needn’t strike it down; the courts and/or the executive branch can just gut the legislation by making it difficult to enforce in ways that don’t attract public attention.

This decision is an even greater incentive to get behind the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would require employers to make employee salaries public so women will know sooner if they’re getting paid less for equal (or more) work.UPDATE: In comments, Jill Zimon points out that Congressional Dems have responded to the ruling by pledging to pass a law that eliminates the time restriction.
(P.S. For your reading pleasure, Ginsburg’s dissent.)

A federal judge ruled against the Obama administration’s current system of family detention late Friday, saying that it violated minimum requirements forconditions for children held in federal immigration custody, particularly provisions requiring that minors be placed in nonsecure facilities run by agencies licensed for child care.

That secure private prison complexes are inherently unable to be child-appropriate settings should really come as a surprise to no one.

The long overdue decision affirms what Cristina Parker at Grassroots Leadership points out thousands of immigration advocates across the country have been saying for over a year now: that existing federal requirements regarding the treatment of unaccompanied minorsapprehended at the border (which require such basic protections as a policy favoring quick release, proper physical care and maintenance, and legal services) also protect children caught with their parents. ...

A federal judge ruled against the Obama administration’s current system of family detention late Friday, saying that it violated minimum requirements forconditions for children held in federal immigration custody, particularly provisions requiring that minors be placed in nonsecure facilities ...

Here’s the truth: the United States doesn’t do enough to ensure decent treatment of pregnant workers. Sure, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, passed in 1978, prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of pregnancy. But this law alone is not enough. To truly enjoy equal opportunity in the workplace, many pregnant workers need more than just better enforcement of anti-discrimination law: they also need rights specific to pregnant workers’ needs, like the ability to take more frequent bathroom breaks or paid sick leave — which the law, right now, doesn’t always require employers to provide.

Here’s what you need to know about two proposed bills in Congress now that would dramatically help pregnant workers, and what you can do to make ...

Here’s the truth: the United States doesn’t do enough to ensure decent treatment of pregnant workers. Sure, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, passed in 1978, prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of pregnancy. But this law ...

It is not always easy to criticize the elders of your own family. But Ian Millhiser, a former Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals clerk, boldly hurls powerful critiques at the top of the judiciary’s food chain: the United States Supreme Court.